more on Science is for Pansies - REAL Men believe in Genesis!

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "John S. Quarterman" <jsq () quarterman org>
Date: August 14, 2005 11:51:08 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: "John S. Quarterman" <jsq () quarterman org>
Cc: Ip Ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Science is for Pansies - REAL Men believe  
in Genesis!


> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Steven Champeon <schampeo () hesketh com>
> Date: August 6, 2005 1:37:34 PM EDT
> To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Cc: jhuggins () kettering edu
> Subject: Re: [IP] more on Science is for Pansies - REAL Men believe
> in Genesis!

I thought somebody else would have said what I'm going to say below,
but apparently nobody did, so here it is.


> on Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 09:39:25AM -0400, David Farber forwarded:
>
>
> > Subject: Re: more on Science is for Pansies - REAL Men believe in
> > Genesis!
> >
> >
> >
> > > From: "Kobrin, Steve" <kobrins () wharton upenn edu>
> >
> >
> >
> > > More importantly, where have we failed as educators?
> >
> > When we generalize and ridicule those who disagree with us instead of
> > seeking to educate and inform.  Forgive me, but I'm going to pick on
> > something you said a little later in your message:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Most of these people have had science in high school or college.
> > > However, if someone tells them that it is all nonsense and the
> > > world was created 5000 years ago, they believe it.  One has to
> > > wonder about the quality of science education in this country.


> > This lumps all the "intelligent design" and "literal creationists"
> > into the same boat.  There are *plenty* of people who believe in a  
> > Creator
> > who also believe that the world is millions of years old.  The two
> > beliefs are compatible.  But you wouldn't know that from the way this
> > so-called "debate" is actually conducted in the public sphere.   
> > All we
> > hear about are the extremes.
>
> That's standard practice when constructing a debate - isolate the most
> dramatic examples of opposing arguments and then zero in on them. It's
> rather pointless to debunk potentially flawed compromise positions.

I think you missed the point.  Too many people in this "debate"  
implicitly
and often explicitly tar all religious people or at least all Christians
as promoters of ID or creationists.  The result of such scattershot  
debate
is that it can turn more people against those who shoot blindly.  In  
other
words, it plays into the hands of the ID promoters.


> In this case, the folks promoting "intelligent design" attempt to find
> authoritative statements of inquiry into "holes" in "evolutionary
> theory" as preachers try to find illustrative passages from the Bible
> to support their sermons. Not as debate, not as a pursuit of logical
> conclusions or demonstrable facts and processes, but as an emotional
> appeal to the heart.

Yes.  And they often provoke emotional reactions against all Christians,
which then promotes reactions in turn, which all plays into the hands
of those promoters of ID.


> Evolution, and the supposed implication that behind it all lies  
> nothing,
> no God nor loving heavenly Savior, frightens the wits out of some  
> people
> - and so rather than trying to embrace the idea that the universe is
> even more wondrous than their religious leaders and prophets could  
> have
> ever imagined, they run like scared rabbits into the comforting  
> beliefs
> of childhood.

Could be.

And it could also be that they (and you) don't understand what their
prophets were really trying to get at, which may not have anything
to do with how old the universe is.


> It's not a debate - it's a querolous mob looking for comfort. And no
> amount of pretending that "intelligent design" is anything else will
> bring forth a "debate". You cannot reason with those to whom reason  
> is a
> stranger, or with those driven by fear and ignorance.

You can, however, aim blindly and offend many people who weren't  
offending
you, and thus make things worse.


> You can only, at
> best, make a contrasting emotional appeal, one which is likely to fail
> due to the underlying fact of the matter, which is that many people  
> hold
> ludicrous beliefs; those beliefs are not remotely systematized nor
> falsifiable, and ultimately in any honest person must be shed as the
> comforts of a younger and more ignorant child, species, culture, or
> community.

How about pointing out that Jesus never said anything about how long
ago the earth was created, and that what he did emphasize as important
had nothing to do with that?  I.e., appeal to what they claim they do  
believe.

For that matter, there's Job 38:

"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Declare, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measures, if you know?
Or who stretched the line on it?
Whereupon were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning stars sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

It goes on for many more examples,
in case it wasn't clear that any one
example is not the point.


> I've spent a long time trying to argue with people and wasted many  
> long
> hours before realizing that I approached many of those arguments  
> with an
> implicit assumption about the rules of the game, all too often not
> shared. This assumption? That both parties understood that the  
> processes
> and techniques may be manifold, but that the final goal was to  
> obtain a
> better understanding, or a belief worth holding, even if that meant
> shedding or reexamining other, perhaps cherished, sets of beliefs,  
> sadly
> founded on nonsense.

This is a good example of a paragraph that could easily be read as  
saying
that all religion is founded on nonsense.  You may believe that, but  
it's
rather beside the point, and when brought into such a discussion  
about ID
only serves to exacerbate it.


> Science's attempt to survive (later mirrored by theology's attempt  
> to do
> the same) by splitting off questions of fact from questions of  
> faith is
> coming back around on us now, where education has actually made it
> possible for the average person to be exposed to questions and  
> proposals
> that were once the realm of the natural philosopher and gentleman
> scholar and don.


> Naturally, the dishonesty of science's (and theology's!) attempt to
> sweep under the rug the fundamental relatedness of the basic questions
> asked, and often answered, by both, is obvious to anyone who thinks
> about it for very long. Unfortunately, for someone to whom the
> theological answers are more familiar, more deeply ingrained, the
> instinct is to defend the old, rather than examine either or welcome
> the new.

Ah, an argument consisting of it's "obvious".  Very rational.

Maybe there are more things in the universe than are dreamed of
in your philosophy.

And maybe that's exactly the problem with the ID people, too.

While perhaps the efficacy of "love thy neighbor" may be elucidated
via evolutionary theory or by modern psychological research, the  
original
statement was a religious statement, not a scientific one.  Indeed there
may be much overlap in the concerns of religion and science, but there
are many things in religion that aren't motivated by science and aren't
contradicted by it, either.


> I don't know if "evolutionary theory" is true, or sound. It seems  
> to me
> to make much more sense than the Genesis story. As with all science,
> future discoveries may require its extension or modification or  
> that it
> be discarded like Newton's physics or Scholastic mathematics or
> Aristotelian dentistry. But I do know that "intelligent design" is
> Creationism drawn not from the wells of honest inquiry but from the  
> fear
> of modernity and ignorance of logic and language and precedes not  
> from a
> fact to belief in a Creator, but from a belief in a Creator to a  
> desire
> to see science dethroned.

I would tend to agree with you.


> As an old friend of mine used to say: "It's too bad ignorance isn't
> painful". We might be encouraged to educate ourselves instead of
> remaining in bliss.

So, tell me, what's the difference in the religion of St. John of the  
Cross
and that of Pat Robertson?

I.e., how many people who want to argue with religious people have  
bothered
to educate themselves about religion?


> > If, as educators, you really believe that intelligent design is bunk,
> > then use the tools of education to fight that battle.  Ignorance is
> > curable.  But dismissing your opponents as uneducatable and
> > unlearned by
> > making dismissive remarks about the quality of their teachers
> > serves no
> > useful purpose.  Show the folly in your opponents' arguments.  But
> > then be prepared to have your arguments examined with the same
> > scrutiny.
> >
> > Come ... let us reason together ...


> You've missed the point. Yes, ignorance is curable, if the patient  
> will
> submit to the appropriate regimen.
>
> Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated countless times throughout
> history, long past and recent, religious beliefs have had a dreadful
> effect on the ability of those who hold them to "reason together".

Here, again, you've fired a scattershot blast against all religion,
when the problem is ID and creationism.


> Part of this effect is due to the lack of basic understanding or
> acceptance of logic, the scientific method, and so on. The usual "and
> then a miracle happened..." line.

Many religious people have no difficulties with science or logic.
For that matter, many scientists have had no difficulty with religion.

"Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you establish its dominion over the earth?"

One can well argue the answer to that is "Isaac Newton"
and then it would be useful to remember that one of his
main motivations was to understand how his God works.


> Part is due to the lack of applicability of the scientific method and
> the principle of falsifiability to esoteric beliefs in such as a  
> Creator
> who stands outside space and time, or a Messiah who can bend  
> physics to
> his will, or for that matter a Prophet who listens to angel and in the
> process is delivered the Qur'an.

And I thought esoteric meant "known only to a chosen few."
Perhaps there was an esoteric meaning to your paragraph
beyond citing a few beliefs very well known to many people.

A brief study of the history of religion would reveal that
many Jews and Christians and Moslems have had no difficulty
with science, and that there are many ways to interpret the
items you cite other than in a literal manner.

I don't know for sure what the other poster's point was,
but my point, once again, is that scattershot attacks against
religion don't really help in opposing ID or creationism.
Rather the opposite: they provoke further reactions from
parties who weren't even promoting ID or creationism,
thus playing into the hands of the actual promoters.

Saying there's no difference in the concerns of science and religion
probably won't help, either, because that's easily seen as an
argument that both should be taught in the same class.

Pointing out that people who promote ID or creationism
aren't really following their own religions might help.


> ...


> Steve

-jsq


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/